I am a grownup and therefore have no problem with "fold methods by default" being a toggle-able option, but this argument seemed odd to me:<p>> I think it is pretty obvious how awesome this actually is. Code is read more often than written, and this is one of the best multipliers for readability. Most of the code is in method bodies, but most important code is in function signatures. Folding bodies auto-magically hide the 80% of boring code, leaving the most important 20%.<p>I see where they're coming from, especially for codebases you already understand. But my workflow for new codebases is to at least visually inspect the method implementation before deciding whether or not to hide it. Does it actually look like boilerplate? Does it invoke any functions I haven't seen before? If it seems nontrivial, read it! Does the computation basically match my English-language description of the signature, or is there something deeper I missed? If everything was hidden by default I would either waste time un-hiding everything, or make lazy mistakes by saying "eh I'm pretty sure that's boilerplate." Coding by gluing together function signatures without reading the implementation is a recipe for making business-logic bugs.<p>My problem is similar to why I don't like using LLMs: taking the 80-20 thing at face value, you don't know which 20% of methods have nontrivial internal semantics which aren't conveyed by the type system, unless you already have a solid understanding of the code. (Note that Rust's type system does actually evade mutability / concurrency issues. But not incorrect business logic: it is not yet Lean or Idris.) I just don't like rolling the dice on this stuff - business logic bugs are horrible! They are difficult to suss out, especially if you weren't fully diligent in understanding the logic in the first place. Why would you roll a d5 on that?<p>Part of my aversion is that I am lucky enough to not be in a hurry. At my last job - 70 hrs/week of R and Python, reading papers, and writing emails - I would have been much more tempted for these "multipliers for readability," especially ChatGPT. But when you're not in a hurry, you are more sensitive to these multipliers also multiplying laziness and misconceptions.